In September, I reported on two opinions handed down in August in Brinker "grant and hold" cases: Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, 209 Cal.App.4th 35 (2012) and Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 208 Cal.App.4th 1487 (2012).
In both cases, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) affirmed orders denying class certification of meal period claims, and in doing so, badly misstated the Supreme Court's holding in Brinker. According to both opinions, Brinker supposedly held that employers need only "offer" meal periods or make them "available." In fact, however, Brinker accepted the workers' argument on this point, and held that employers must affirmatively relieve workers of all duty for their meal periods.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled its disapproval of the Court of Appeal's analyses in Lamps Plus and Hernandez by depublishing both opinions. Copies of my depublication requests are available here and here.
CELA also filed depublication requests in these two cases, and in Lamps Plus, a request was filed by a group of workers represented by Eve Cervantez.
My post from September mentioned a third Brinker "grant and hold" case, Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., 208 Cal.App.4th 1381 (2012). The depublication request in that case remains pending.